Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1698941725427.pdf (Zambia)
RULING BY THEHON MR SPEAKER ON A POINT OFORDER RAISEDBYMRGGNKOMBO,MEMBEROFPARLIAMENTFOR MAZABUKA CENTRAL PARLIAMENTRAY CONSTITUENCY ON WHETHERTHEHOUSEWASINORDERTODELIBERATEONTHE CONSTITUTIONOFZAMBIA(AMENDMENT)BILLN.A.B.NO.10 OF 2019 WHICH CONTAINED A CLAUSE WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OFLITIGATION IN THE MATTER OFDIPAKPATEL AND THE MINISTER OF FINANCE AND THE ATTORNEY- GENERAL–CAUSENO.2020/CC/005 1.0 INTRODUCTION HonMemberswillrecallthatonWednesday,18th March,2020, whiletheHousewasconsideringtheSecondReadingStageof theConstitutionofZambia(Amendment)Bill,No.10of2019,and the Hon MemberforChipata Centralwas debating,MrG G Nkombo, Member of Parliament for Mazabuka Central Parliamentary Constituency,raised a PointofOrderin the followingterms: "MrNkombo:Sir,IriseonaveryseriouspointoforderandI wishtobeginbythankingyoumostsincerelyforthe opportunity.
1 MrSpeaker,therehavebeenprecedentstotheeffectthat whenamatterthatisunderdiscussioninthisHouseis admittedinthecourtsoflaw,tocontinuedeliberatingonit, issubjudice.

Sir,IamawareoftheprecedentsthatIamreferringto.For easeofreference,thisMemberofParliamenthere(Referring tohimself),assistedbytheMemberofParliamentforRoan, DrKambwili,movedaMotiontoimpeachthePresidentof theRepublicofZambia,HisExcellencyPresidentEdgar ChagwaLungu.
TheMotionwasevenadmittedfordeliberation.Duringthe courseofconsiderationofwhentobringthisMotiononthe Tablefordebate,somecitizensdecidedtoapproachthe courtsandI,asmoveroftheMotion,wasinformedbyyour office,MrSpeaker,thatsincethematterIbroughtbeforethe Househadnowbecomeasubjectinthecourtsoflaw,ithad becomedifficultfortheAssemblytoproceed,becausethe twomatterscouldnotrunsidebyside.Oneprocessrequired tohavebeencompletedbeforetheHousecouldadmitthe MotionofimpeachmentofthePresidentfordeliberation.
2 MrSpeaker,Iamawarethatyouroffice,today,the18thof March,2020,hasbeenservedwithcourtdocuments,copies ofwhichIhaveinmyhands,andIwilllaythemontheTable whenIfinishraisingmyPointofOrder.Theyareduly stamped"Received"bytheofficeoftheClerkoftheNational Assembly.

Thisisinthematterofthefollowingparties:MrDipakPatel, citizen,asaPetitioner,andtheMinisterofFinance,whois sittinghere,astheFirstRespondent,andtheAttorney- GeneralastheSecondRespondent.
Inthismatter,theConstitutionalCourtofZambiahasa petition,andforeaseofreference,Iwillgoaheadanddeal withthefirstcopyofthisparticularmatterwhichissubject foryou,Sir,togothroughandhopefullydecidewhetherto halttheproceedingsontheConstitution(Amendment)Bill, No.10of2019,whichisontheOrderPaperandontheFloor oftheHouserightnow,justasyoudidinthecasewhereI intendedtomoveaMotiontoimpeachtheRepublican President,MrEdgarChagwaLungu.
Foreaseofreferencemyquoteis:"IntheConstitutional CourtofZambia".Thisisdated18thMarch,2020,holdenat LusakaConstitutionaljurisdiction,inthematterofPart1, 3 Article2oftheConstitutionofZambia(Amendment)Act,No.

2of2016,inthematterofArticle63,whichisthemost relevantArticleinthisparticularmatter,becauseitdealswith theauthorityoftheMinisterofFinanceortheExecutiveto borrowwithoutduepermission,astheConstitutionsays, fromthisHouse.
Itreads:InthematterofPart16oftheConstitutionof Zambia(Amendment)ActNo.2of2016;inthematterof Article177(5)oftheConstitutionofZambia(Amendment) ActNo.2of2016;inthematteroftheLoansandGuarantees AuthorisationAct,Cap366oftheLawsofZambia;inthe matterofpublicborrowingbytheGovernmentofthe RepublicofZambia.

Ihavealreadymentionedthepetitioners,andtherespondent.
However,formetoconclude,Iwilljusttakeapartofthe issuesthatareinthepetition.Fifthly,thepetitionershallsay, thatasaZambiancitizenandataxpayer,heisaffected directlybyanydebtthatthefirstandsecondrespondents authoriseandsignonbehalfoftheGovernmentofthe RepublicofZambia,andassuch,hehasrequisitestanding tobringthisclaimbeforethecourt.Thepetitionershallalso saythatArticle2,underPart1oftheConstitutionofZambia 4 (Amendment)ActNo.2of2016,recognisestherightand dutyofeverycitizenoreverypersontodefendthe Constitutionandresistorpreventtheoverthrow,suspension orillegalabrogationoftheConstitutionofZambia.
Ireadinpart.

MrSpeaker,wouldthisHouse,therefore,beinorderto continuetodealforthwithwiththeissueofBill10,which containsthisparticularArticlethatIhavequotedinthis documentfromcourt?Itismyprayerthatinyourrulingafter youhavestudiedthematteryouwill,likeyouhavedone before,halttheproceedingsontheConstitutionofZambia (Amendment)BillNo.10,untilthismatterisdisposedofin thecourtsoflaw.
MrSpeaker:HonMemberforMazabukaCentral,for completenesssake,doyouhavetheletterwhichyousaidI wrotetoyou?InyourPointofOrderyoureferredtoaletterI wrotetoyou.

MrNkombo:Iwascommunicatedtobytheofficeofthe Clerk,notyourself,Sir… MrSpeaker:Yesthatveryletter… MrNkombo:…thatthematterisnowincourtand,therefore, youcouldnotproceed.Itisinmyoffice.

5 MrSpeaker:Alright,induecoursesupplyit."


HonMembers,on23rd March,2020,aftertheHouseadjourned sinedie,theClerkwrotetoMrGGNkombo,MP,requestinghim toavailheracopyoftheletterthathehadreferredtoinhisPoint ofOrder,andindicatedwasinhisoffice.Theletterinquestion, wascouchedinthefollowingterms: “RE:POINTOFORDERRAISEDBYYOURSELF Theabovesubjectmatterrefers.
Sir,onWednesday,18th March,2020,whentheHousewas consideringtheSecondReadingStageoftheConstitutionof Zambia(Amendment)Bill,No.10of2019,youraisedaPointof Order.InthesaidPointofOrder,youaskedwhethertheHouse wasinordertodeliberateontheConstitutionofZambia (Amendment)Bill,whichcontainsaclausewhichisthesubjectof litigationintheConstitutionalCourtinthematterofDipakPatelv theMinisterofFinanceandtheAttorney-General,undercause Number2020/CC/005.IncouchingyourPointofOrder,youmade referencetoaletterfromtheNationalAssemblywhenyoustated, inter-alia,asfollows: "…Duringthecourseofconsiderationofwhentobringthis 6 MotionontheTablefordebate,somecitizensdecidedto approachthecourtsandI,asmoveroftheMotion,was informedbyyouroffice,MrSpeaker,thatsincethematterI broughtbeforetheHousehadnowbecomeasubjectinthe courtsoflaw,ithadbecomedifficultfortheAssemblyto proceed,becausethetwomatterscouldnotrunsideby side."
Further,inthefollowingexcerptoftheverbatimrecordofthe House,theHonMrSpeakerdirectedyoutoavailthesaidletter: “MrSpeaker:HonMemberofParliamentforMazabuka Central,forcompletenesssake,doyouhavetheletterwhichyou saidIwrotetoyou?InyourPointofOrderyoureferredtoaletterI wrotetoyou.

MrNkombo:Iwascommunicatedtobytheofficeofthe Clerk,notyourself,Sir... MrSpeaker:Yes,thatveryletter... MrNkombo:...thatthematterisnowincourt,and,therefore, youcouldnotproceed.Itisinmyoffice.
MrSpeaker:Alright,induecourse,supplyit.” Sir,asyouareaware,theHonMrSpeakerreservedhisrulingon 7 thePointofOrder.

Inviewoftheforegoing,weherebyrequestyoutofurnishusa copyoftheletterfromtheNationalAssemblythatyoureferredto inyourPointofOrder.Itwouldbeappreciated,Sir,ifthesaid letterissubmittedtotheOfficeoftheClerkoftheNational Assemblyassoonaspossible,butnotlaterthanWednesday,25th March,2020.
Yoursfaithfully CeciliaSikatele(Ms) for/CLERKOFTHENATIONALASSEMBLY” MrGGNkombo,MPrespondedtotheletterreferredtoabove,on 6thApril,2020,andhisresponsewasexpressedinthefollowing terms: “RE:POINTOFORDERRAISEDBYMYSELF Kindlyrefertoabovesubjectandyourletterdated23rdMarch, 2020,inwhichyoudemandedthatIavailaletterthattheSpeaker saidhewroteonthematterofthemotionIsoughttoimpeachthe 8 PresidentoftheRepublicofZambiaH.EPresidentE.CLunguin March,2018.
Firstlyandmostimportantly,Iam astoundedthatyoucould classifyamatterofsuchpublicinterestandmagnitudeas confidential.Pleasenotethatthereisnojustificationforsuch classification,asthismatterisalreadyinthepublicdomain.

Kindlytakenoteofthethreecardinalfactssurroundingmypoint oforder, 1.InmypointoforderIstatedunambiguouslythatIwas informedbyyourofficethat,(REF1:page1highlighted)and Iquote: “MrNkombo:Themotionwasevenadmittedfordeliberation.
Duringthecourseofconsiderationofwhentobringthis MotionontheTablefordebate,somecitizensdecidedto approachthecourts,andIasmoveroftheMotionwas informedbyyouroffice,MrSpeaker,thatsincethematterI broughtbeforetheHousehadnowbecomeasubjectofthe courtsoflaw,ithadbecomedifficultfortheAssemblyto proceed,becausethetwomatterscouldnotrunsidebyside.
Oneprocessrequiredtohavebeencompletedbeforethe 9 HousecouldadmittheMotionofimpeachmentofthe Presidentfordeliberation.” 2.AfterpromptingbytheHonourableMrSpeakeraboutwhat hereferredtoasthe“completeness’ssake”ofmyPointof Order,Mr.Speakerintroducedandreferredtoa“letter”which IdidnotmentioninmyPointofOrder.Mr.Speakerasked meandIquote:“DoyouhavetheletterwhichyousaidI wrotetoyou.InyourPointofOrderyoureferredtoaletterI wrotetoyou?”(REF2highlightedonpage3asrecordedin theHansard) 3.MyresponsetoMrSpeaker’sdemandandassertionthatI saidhisofficehadwrittentome,IcorrectedMrSpeakerthat Ihadbeencommunicatedtobyyourofficeregardingthe impeachmentmotion,andIquote:“Iwascommunicatedto bytheofficeoftheClerkandnotyourself,Sir...”(REF3 highlightedonpage3) KindlyfindattachedtheletterIreferredtohavebeeninmyoffice regardingtheimpeachmentofthePresident,dated27thMarch 2018.Thisletterwasinresponsetoyourletterof26thMarch, 2018,thatisinyourfilesregardingtheimpeachmentmotionthatI referredtowhenMrSpeakerinsistedonaletteron18thMarch 2020.Inyourletteryouindicatedthatduetothegravityofthe 10 matter,Mr.Speakerwishedtostudymymotion.Whilehewas studyingthemotion,twocitizensofZambiacommencedcourt action,which has to-date,(three years later),halted the proceedingsofmymotion.
Inviewoftheabove,IamconvincedthatifthecommunicationI receivedfromyourselfwaseitherinaccurateormisunderstoodby myself,theimpeachmentmotionof2018,wouldhavebeen Tabledanddisposedofbynow.Todate,Ibelievethemotionhas notbeenTabled,becauseofthecourtactioncommencedbythe citizensreferredtoabove.
Yoursfaithfully G.GNKOMBO,M.P MAZABUKACENTRALCONSTITUENCY” HonMembers,inmyimmediateresponsetothePointofOrder,I indicatedthatIhadnothadsightofthecourtprocessthatthe HonMemberhadreferredto.Consequently,Istooddownthe proceedings,toenablemeexaminethecourtprocess,inorderto decidewhatcourseofactiontotake.
Onresumptionofbusiness,IinformedtheHousethatgrantedthe issuesraised in the PointofOrder,and the documentsand 11 precedents;both judicialand thosefounded on parliamentary practiceandprocedure,requiredtobeexamined,alotmoretime wasrequired,toponderoverthePointofOrder,inordertorender ameasuredruling.I,therefore,reservedmyruling.

Iam now readytorendermyruling.


HonMembers,thePointofOrder,raisesasoleissueorquestion, ofwhetherornot,theHouseisinordertoproceedtoconsiderthe ConstitutionofZambia(Amendment)Bill(N.A.BNo.10of2019), inlightofthefactthattheBill,allegedly,containsaclausewhich isthesubjectoflitigationinthematterbetweenDipakPatelvthe MinisterofFinanceandtheAttorney-General-2020/CC005.In order to address the Point of Order comprehensively and systematically,Ihavedecidedtosubdividetherulinginfourparts.
(i) ThefirstpartshalladdressthecontextofthePointof Order.Namely,theassertionorsuggestionthatIshould follow theprecedentsetintheImpeachmentMotion againstHisExcellencythePresident,MrEdgarChagwa Lungu,whereIallegedlystatedorcommunicatedtoMr G G Nkombo,MPthattheImpeachmentMotionwas subjudice; (ii) ThesecondpartshalladdressthecaseofChishimba KambwilivAttorney-General-2019/CC/009,vis-a-vis 12 theconceptordoctrineofobiterdicta; (iii) ThethirdpartwilladdresstheactualPointofOrder raisedbyMrGGNkombo,MP.Insodoing,thispart shallbeprecededbyadiscussionoftheconceptorthe doctrineofsubjudice;and (iv) Thefourthandlastpartoftherulingwillcomprise,the ultimateconclusion.
HonMembers,Iwillnow proceedtoaddressthegenesis,and contextofthePointofOrder.
1.1GENESISANDCONTEXTOFTHEPOINTOFORDER HonMembers,youmayrecallthatonWednesday,21stMarch, 2018,Idepartedthecountry,andledadelegationofselected MembersofParliament,theClerkandsomeofherstaff,tothe 138thAssemblyoftheInter-ParliamentaryUnion(IPU)andRelated MeetingsthattookplaceinGeneva,Switzerland,from Saturday 24th to Wednesday,28th March,2018.The following day,on Thursday,22nd March,2018,aNoticeofMotiontoImpeachthe RepublicanPresident,MrEdgarChagwaLungu,movedbyMrGG Nkombo,MP,and seconded byDrC Kambwili,the erstwhile MemberofParliamentforRoanParliamentaryConstituency,was lodgedintheClerk’soffice.
13 HonMembers,uponlodgmentoftheImpeachmentMotioninthe officeoftheClerk,Iwasdulyandpromptlynotifiedaboutthe same,bytheFirstDeputySpeaker,HonCNamugala,MP,andthe staffintheofficeoftheClerk.InviewofthegravityoftheMotion, IinstructedtheFirstDeputySpeaker,inconcertwiththestaffin theofficeoftheClerk,toacknowledgereceiptoftheMotion,and advisetheMover,MrGGNkombo,MP,thatIneededtostudythe Motion.
Accordingly,on26thMarch,2018,MsCSikatele,communicateda lettertoMrGGNkombo,MP,inthefollowingterms: “DearSir RE:NOTICEOFMOTIONONTHEIMPEACHMENTOFTHE PRESIDENT Referenceismadetoyourletterdated22ndMarch,2018,on theabovesubjectmatterinwhichyousubmittedtheNotice ofMotionontheimpeachmentofthePresidentofZambia, MrEdgarChagwaLungu.

Iwishtoacknowledgereceiptofthelettertogetherwiththe accompanyingdocuments.Inviewofthegravityofthe 14 Motion,thesameisbeingstudied,andweshallreverttoyou induecourse.
Yoursfaithfully Signed CeciliaSikatele(Ms) For/CLERKOFTHENATIONALASSEMBLY ccHonChishimbaKambwili,MP” Subsequently,onWednesday,28thMarch,2018,MrJJMwiimbu, LeaderoftheOpposition,andMemberofParliamentforMonze CentralParliamentary Constituency,raised a PointofOrder inquiringonthestatusoftheImpeachmentMotion.ThePointof Orderwasexpressedinthefollowingterms: "Madam Speaker,IriseonaveryseriousPointofOrder basedontheConstitutionofZambia,theStandingOrders andtheNationalAssembly(PowersandPrivileges)Act pertainingtoHonMembersofParliament.
MadamSpeaker,youmayrecallthatonThursdaylastweek, Hon.GarryNkombopresentedaMotionunderStanding Order37andtheMotionwastobesecondedbyHon 15 Kambwili...MadamSpeaker,weareallawarethatifanHon MemberofthisHousedecidestoraiseaMotionunderthe StandingOrdersIjustreferredto,heisrequiredtogivethree daysnotice.Thatrequirementwascompliedwith.Madam Speaker,theNoticeofMotionwasanchoredonArticle108 oftheConstitutionofZambiarelatingtotheimpeachmentof thePresident.
IrecallthatIsworebeforeyoutodefendtheConstitutionof Zambiaandmycolleagues,HonGarryNkomboandHon KambwilireliedontheprovisionsoftheConstitutionof Zambia,whichwepassedontheFloorofthisAugustHouse in2015,andwasassentedtobyHisExcellencythePresident in2016.

Madam Speaker,todate,wehavenotbeentoldbyyour officewhenthisMotionisgoingtobedebatedontheFloor ofthisAugustHouseaspertheConstitution,andthe StandingOrdersofParliament.
MadamSpeaker,asifthatisnotenough,weareawarethat membersoftheExecutivehavebeenissuingstatementsin themediatotheeffectthatthisMotionwillnotbeaccepted byyouroffice…TheyhavedebatedaMotionwhichisbefore 16 you...inthevariouspublicmediaandontelevision....before youevenrespondtous..MadamSpeaker,asifthatisnot enough,theHonMembersofParliament,inparticular,my brotherhere,Hon.GarryNkombo,isbeingthreatenedby thugsoutsideandhislifeisindanger.MadamSpeaker,we areinthisAugustHousetoexerciseourrightsasperthe Constitution.Thereisnothingirregularwehavedone throughthisMotion.Anycivilisedsocietydemandsthatwe followwhattheConstitutionsays…andthatiswhatwehave done.
MadamSpeaker,wewantyoutotelluswhetherweareout oforderbyraising aproceduralMotionasperthe Constitution and the Standing Orders,which provide guidancetothisAugustHouseonthisissue.Whatwrong havewedone?Whatwronghashedone(pointingattheHon MemberforMazabukaCentral)forhimtobethreatened?

WhatwronghashedoneinexerciseofhisrightsasanHon MemberofParliamentpursuanttothelawwepassed?Right now,theatmospherehereinthisAugustHouseisnot conducive…IfitwasUPND,MadamSpeaker,therewould havebeenbloodshedoutside.
MadamSpeaker,Iwouldlikeyourguidanceonthismatter 17 whetherwearewrongtohaveraisedthismatter,andhaving compliedwiththeprovisionsofthelaw,whetherthisAugust HouseshouldnotTabletheMotionontheFloorofthe House."
InherimmediateresponsetothePointofOrder,theFirstDeputy Speaker,HonCNamugala,MP,ruledasfollows: “ThePointofOrderraisesthreeveryimportantissues.The firstoneiswhetherornot,indeedtheMotiontoimpeachthe PresidentisprovidedforintheConstitution.Thesecond pointiswhetherornottheprocesssofarhascompliedwith ourownrules,theStandingOrders.Thethirdoneistheissue ofthreats.TheHonMemberforMonzeCentralhasraised theissueofthreatsthattherearepeopleouttherewhoare threateningtheHonMemberofParliamentforMazabuka Central.
HonMembers,inmyresponsetothePointofOrder,Iwishto statethatif,indeed,thereareanypeopleoutthereandthey arewithintheprecinctsofParliament,threateninganyoneof theHonMembershere,theymustberemovedimmediately.

HonMembersofthisAugustHousemustnotbethreatened byanyonewithintheprecinctsofParliament.AsIhave 18 indicated,iftheyarethere,theymustberemoved.
HonMembers,thesecondpointthatIwishtorespondtois whetherornotanImpeachmentMotionisprovidedfor.Yes, indeed,underArticle108ofourownConstitution,itis providedforasfollows: “108.

(1)AMemberofParliamentsupportedby,atleast, one-thirdoftheMembersofParliament,maymovea motionforimpeachmentofthePresidentallegingthat thePresidenthascommitted- (a) aviolationofaprovisionofthisConstitution orotherlaw; (b) acrimeunderinternationallaw;or (c) Grossmisconduct.” IhavereadArticle108clause1andIhaveread paragraphs(a)(b)and(c).
HonMembers,intermsofwhetherornottheprocess ortheMotionthatisbeingproposedhascompliedwith theConstitutionalprovisions,yes,itiswithinthese provisions.Therefore,itisincompliancewiththe provisionsofourConstitution.So,inasfarasthatis concerned,ithasbeencompliedwith.However,this 19 Constitutiondoesnotgiveatimeframewithinwhichan ImpeachmentMotionmustbeTabled.Itdoesnotgive atimeframewithinwhichaMotionsuchasthisone shouldbeTabledontheFloorofthisAugustHouse.

StandingOrder37states: “37.


(1)A MembermayintroduceaPrivate Member’sMotionatanytime.

(2)AMemberwhowishestointroduceaMotion underparagraph(1)shalldelivertotheClerk’s Officeafairlytypedwrittennotice,signedbythe MemberandaseconderoftheMotion.The Motionmustalsoclearlyindicateinthenotice,the dateproposedforintroducingtheMotioninthe House.
(3)ThedayproposedforintroducingtheMotion shallnotbelessthanthreedaysahead,andwhere noticeisgivenonFriday,notlessthanfourdays aheadprovidedthattheSpeaker,may,byleaveof theHouse,exemptamotionfromthisprovision.

(4)APrivateMember’sMotionshallbegoverned 20 bytherulesofadmissibility.” HonMembers,thePointofOrderistotheeffectthat theHonMemberforMazabukaCentralhascomplied with alltheprovisions.Yes,itistruethatthe Constitutionalprovisions,indeed,havebeencomplied with,buttheConstitutiondoesnotgiveatimeframe.
Further,theStandingOrdersasprovideddonotcompel theSpeakertoTabletheMotionwithinthreedays.

Therefore,inresponsetothisPointofOrder,Iwishto statethatthereisnothingirregularorillegalthathas happened,orthattheSpeaker’sOfficehasdoneto underminetheMotion.ThePointofOrderis,therefore, inadmissible.” HonMembersmaywishtonotethatIreturnedfrom Genevaon Friday,30thMarch,2018.
1.2 THECASEOFROBERTCHABINGAANDHENRYMULENGA VATTORNEYGENERAL Fourdays later,on Wednesday,3rd April,2018,MrRobert Chabinga and MrHenryMulenga,commenced an action,by OriginatingNoticeofMotion,forjudicialreviewintheHighCourt; 21 inthematterofRobertChabinga(AsFirstApplicant)andHenry Mulenga(SecondApplicant)vAttorney-General;undercause number2018/HP/0650.Inthisaction,theapplicantssoughtthe followingorder:“…anorderofcertioraridirectedtotheSpeakerof theNationalAssemblytoquashhisdecisiontoentertainan impeachmentmotiontobeTabledbeforeNationalAssemblyof theRepublicofZambiaagainstthePresidentoftheRepublicof Zambiaisnullandvoidabinitio.” Theparticularsinsupportoftheaction,wereexpressedinthe followingterms: (a) Thatonthe22ndMarch,2018,onememberofthe ZambianParliament,namely,MrGaryNkombo,MPdid presenttotheSpeakeroftheNationalAssembly,aNotice ofMotionwithgroundssupportingtheNoticeofMotion andpurportingtobesignedbyonethirdoftheMembers oftheNationalAssemblysupportingthemotion.
(b)ThattheSPEAKEROFTHENATIONALASSEMBLYonor aboutWednesday,the28thofMarch,2018,didTablethis NoticeofMotion(hereinreferredtoas“theMotion”) whereintheSpeakerdecidedthattheMotionwouldbe Tabledanddiscussedatfulllengthatadatethereafter and/orpreferablyinJune,2018.
22 (c) ThattheSPEAKERdidnotaddresshismindtothefact thatatthetimethegroundsofandtheMotionwere presentedbeforehimforTablingintheNationalAssembly, theMotion,andgroundsthereof,wereandarematters thatarepending inthelawfullyconstituted courts includingtheConstitutionalCourtinZambiaundercauses numbered2016/CCZ/0033and2017/CCZ/004,andthat allowingthesametobeTabledisprejudicialtothecourt proceedings,andthereforesubjudice.
(d)ThattheSPEAKEROFTHENATIONALASSEMBLY, wheretherearependingmattersinthecourtsoflaw relatingtothesamemattersbroughtbeforehim,shall waitforthecourtstodeterminethesematters.

(e) ThatwithreferencetothegroundsoftheMotionwhich donottouchonmattersthatarealreadybeforecourts, the decision ofthe SPEAKER OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLYinrelationthereoftoentertaintheTablingof theMotionwasequallytaintedwithunreasonableness, proceduralimproprietyandillegality.
(f)Thatafterthecourts’determination,theSPEAKEROFTHE NATIONALASSEMBLY,shallthenbeinapositionto determinewhetherornottheMotionandanyothermatter relatedtheretoshouldbetabled.” 23 Inthisregard,theapplicantssoughtthefollowingreliefs: “(a)AnorderofcertioraritoremoveintothisHonourable Courtforthepurposeofquashingthedecisionofthe SPEAKEROFTHENATIONALASSEMBLY,madeonor aboutthe28thMarch,2018,insofarashedecidesthat therearevalidreasonsastowhythemotionshouldbe entertainedbytheNationalAssembly,andfurtherthat thereareestablishedproceduresthatoughttobe followedwherethemattersthatarebroughtbeforethe Speakeraretheveryonesthatarebeforethecourtsof law under causes number 2016/CCZ/0033 and 2017/CCZ/004,whicharestillactiveandassuchsub judiceandprejudicial.
(b)AnorderofcertioraritoremoveintothisHonourable courtforthepurposeofquashingthedecisionofthe SPEAKEROFTHENATIONALASSEMBLY,regardingthe Motiondated22ndMarch,2018,insofarasitpurports toindicatethattheMotionbeforetheHousewas properlybeforeit.Particularsofthebreachinclude,but notlimitedtothefollowing: (i) Failuretoappreciatethatthegroundsofthe 24 Motionand/orissuescomplainedofwereand/or areatthetimeoftheSpeaker’sdecisionand/or thereafteractivelybeforetheConstitutionalCourt and/orothercourts; (ii) ThedecisionoftheSpeakeraforesaidhavingbeen unreasonable,taintedwithproceduralimpropriety andillegality.
(c) AdeclarationthatthedecisionoftheSpeakerofthe NationalAssemblydatedonorabout28thMarch,2018, toaccepttheTablingoftheNoticeofMotiondated22nd March,2018,toimpeachtheRepublicanPresidentwas unconstitutional,andunlawful.

(d)AnorderforCosts.

(e) ANDthatallnecessaryandconsequentialdirectionsbe given.” HonMembersmaywishtonotethatthematterbetweenRobert ChabingaandHenryMulengavAttorney-General,2018/HP/0650; is stillan active matter.

And,therefore,has notyetbeen determined,andconcludedbytheHighCourt.
ToreverttothePointofOrder,HonMembers,youwillrecallthat inhisPointofOrderunderconsideration,MrGGNkombo,MP, allegedthatIhadcommunicatedtohim advisingthattheHouse 25 couldnotproceedwiththeImpeachmentMotion,becauseithad becomesubjudice,asaresultofthecaseofRobertChabinga andHenryMulengavtheAttorneyGeneral.Tobeprecise,Iwish toquotetherelevantpartofMrGGNkombo,MP’s,PointofOrder: “…I,asmoveroftheMotion,Iwasinformedbyyouroffice, MrSpeaker,thatsincethematterIbroughtbeforetheHouse hadnowbecomeasubjectinthecourtsoflaw,ithad becomedifficultfortheAssemblytoproceed,becausethe twomatterscouldnotrunsidebyside.” HonMembers,thetruepositionisthatatnopointdideither myself,theotherPresidingOfficers,orindeed,theOfficeofthe Clerkorherdeputies,communicateinwritingtoMrGGNkombo, MP,thattheImpeachmentMotionwassubjudice,becausean action had been commenced in courtasalleged byMrG G Nkombo,MP,inhisPointofOrder.Bethatasitmay,Iwill,laterin thecourseofmyruling,reverttothismatter.
2.0 THE CASE OF CHISHIMBA KAMBWILIV ATTORNEY GENERAL HonMembers,Iwillnow proceedtoaddressthesecondpartof thisRuling.IwillbeginthispartoftheRulingbyadvertingtothe case of Chishimba Kambwili v the Attorney General 2019/CCZ/009(unreported).Soonthereafter,Iwilldiscussvery 26 briefly,theconceptordoctrineofobiterdicta.Thebrieffactsof theKambwilicasewereasfollows.A petitionwasfiledinthe ConstitutionalCourt,byDrChishimbaKambwili,challengingmy decisionof27thFebruary,2019,declaringtheRoanParliamentary seatvacant,on the basis thatthe Petitioner-DrChishimba Kambwili-hadcrossedtheFloorbyleavingthePatrioticFront (PF);the politicalpartywhich sponsored his election to the National Assembly,and subsequently joined,the National DemocraticCongress(NDC),incontraventionofArticle72(2)(d) and (g)ofthe Constitution.Thus,the Petitionersoughtthe followingreliefs: “1.AdeclarationandorderthattheRulingoftheSpeaker dated27thFebruary,2019,isnullandvoidabinitio; 2.AdeclarationandorderthatthePetitionerdidnotcross theFloorasruledbytheSpeakeroftheNational Assembly; 3.AdeclarationandorderthatthePetitioner’sseatdidnot fallvacantasruledbytheSpeakeroftheNational Assembly; 4.Anyotherremediesthecourtmaydeemfitandjust;and 5.Costs.” 27 Thereliefsreferredtoabovewererefusedorrejected,bythe ConstitutionalCourt.In refusing orrejecting the reliefs,the ConstitutionalCourt,stated,atJ42,asfollows: “AsregardsthePetitioner’ssecondandthirdprayers,for declarationsandordersthatthePetitionerdidnotcrossthe Floor,andthatthePetitioner’sseatdidnotfallvacant,our firmviewisthatthiscourtdoesnothavejurisdictiontodelve intotheissueswhetherornotthePetitionerdidindeedcross theFloororwhetherindeedhisseatfellvacantornot, becausethesearematterswhichatthematerialtimewere pendingdeterminationbytheHighCourt,underwhose jurisdictiontheyfall.Wedonotthuswanttofallintothe sametrapofusurpingthepowersoftheHighCourt,which wasdealingwiththematterinquestion.” Thisconclusion,HonMembers,isstartling.Itisstartling,because Article128(1)(a)providesasfollows: “128.
(1)SubjecttoArticle28,theConstitutionalCourthas originalandfinaljurisdictiontohear- (a)amatterrelatingtotheinterpretationofthisConstitution;” Clearly,Article 128 (1) (a) of the Constitution,gives the 28 ConstitutionalCourt both originaland finaljurisdiction to determine any matter relating to the interpretation of any provisionintheConstitution.Iam fortifiedinthisinterpretation, bythedecisionoftheHighCourt,inthecaseofDaviesMwila (suinginhiscapacityasSecretaryGeneralofthePatrioticFront Party)vtheAttorneyGeneral,2018/HP/2111(unreported).Inthis matter,thePatrioticFront(PF),launchedanactionintheHigh Court,seekingjudicialreview ofmyrefusaltodeclaretheRoan Parliamentaryseatvacant,basedonArticle72(5).Indelivering judgmentinthematter,KombeJ,stated,atR40-R41 “...Inviewoftheforegoing,Ifindthatthiscourtdoesnot havethejurisdictiontohearanddeterminethisapplication forleavetocommencejudicialreviewproceedingsforthe followingreasons: (i) Thegroundsuponwhichthereliefsofdeclaration, certiorari,andmandamusaresoughttochallengethe Hon Speaker’s decision are illegality and unreasonableness.Adeterminationofthesegrounds bythiscourtwilldependupontheconstructionofthe contentandscopeofArticle72oftheConstitution, whichveststheHonSpeakerwiththepowertodeclare aparliamentaryseatvacant.Thisactiontherefore 29 bordersontheinterpretationofthesaidArticle72, whichisapreserveoftheConstitutionalCourt;and (ii) TheApplicantallegesthattherefusalbytheHon SpeakertorefusetodeclaretheRoanseatvacanthas contravenedArticle72oftheConstitution.Thecorrect forumtohearanddeterminethismatteraccordingto Article128(1)(a),istheConstitutionalCourt.
Havingmadetheabovefinding,itfollowsthattheApplicant shouldhavecommencedanactionintheConstitutional Courtbywayofpetition.” Inmakingthisdetermination,Kombe,Jreferredtoandrelied,inter alia,onthedecisionoftheSupremeCourtinthecaseofFelix ChipotaMutatiandOthersvWinnieZaloumis(suinginher capacityasactingNationalSecretaryfortheMovementfor MultipartyDemocracy),SCZ/8/08/2017(unreported).Inthiscase, -Mutaticase– KabukaJS,indeliveringthejudgmentofthe SupremeCourt,observedatpageJ22that:“...theConstitutional Court...isthecompetentcourtmandatedwithoriginaljurisdiction to hearmattersrelating to interpretationofconstitutional provisions.” IhavealreadyobservedthattheConstitutionalCourt,hasoriginal andfinaljurisdictiontohearanddetermineamatterrelatingto 30 theinterpretationofconstitutionalprovisions.
Indecliningto exerciseitsjurisdictionoverthepetitionmovedbyDrChishimba Kambwili,theConstitutionalCourtdeferredtotheHighCourtcase ofChishimbaKambwilivDaviesMwila(BeingsuedasSecretary GeneralofthePatrioticFrontParty)2017/HP/1238(unreported).
Letme,therefore,brieflyandquickly,adverttothismatter.Inthis case,DrChishimbaKambwili’sclaims,werecastinthefollowing terms: “Theplaintiff’sclaimisfor: (i)adeclaratoryorderthatthedecisionofthePatriotic FrontCentralCommitteetoexpeltheplaintifffromthe partyiswrongful,illegal,nullandvoid; (ii) adeclaratoryorderthattheplaintiff’srights underthePatrioticFrontconstitution,wereinfringedby notgivinghimachancetofacehischargesandchargers; (iii)AnorderthatthePatrioticFrontCentralCommittee couldnotbethecomplainantoraccuser,andjudgeinits owncase,againsttheplaintiff; (iv)Anyotherreliefthecourtmaydeemfit;and (v) Costs.” 31 The Patriotic Front,in turn,through its Secretary-General, mountedthefollowingcounterclaim: “Bythiscounterclaimthedefendantclaims: (a)adeclarationthattheRoanConstituencyseatis vacantfollowingtheresignationofthePlaintiff fromthePatrioticFront; (b) Anyfurtherreliefthecourtmightdeemfit;and (c) Costs.” HonMembers,from theclaim andcounterclaim,itisself-evident thatononehand,DrChishimbaKambwili’sactionrelatedtohis expulsionfrom thePatrioticFront.Ontheotherhand,thecounter- claim bythePatrioticFront,relatedtotheallegationthattheRoan ParliamentaryseatfellvacantasaresultofDrKambwiliresigning from thePatrioticFront.
Be thatas itmay,because ofthe position taken by the ConstitutionalCourt,onitsjurisdiction,thecomplaintraisedbyDr Chishimba Kambwili,has,in my opinion,gone unanswered, unsolved or unresolved, to date.
Notwithstanding, the ConstitutionalCourtwenton to observe,in passing,thatthe Speaker,hasnopowerormandatetointerpretboththelaw and theConstitution,becausethatistheexclusivepreserveofthe 32 courtsoflaw.Tothisend,theConstitutionalCourt,speaking through its President,Hon Madam Justice Hilda Chibomba, observedatpagesJ37–J38,asfollows: “OurfirmviewisthatwhiletheSpeakerwaswellwithinhis powertorespondtothePointofOrderthatwasraisedon theFlooroftheHouse,heexceededhispowerswhenhe proceededtoapplythepurposivecanonofinterpretationof statutesinorderto‘cure’thelacunathatheidentifiedin Article72oftheConstitutionasamended.Wefindthatthe Speakerexceededhispowerasthefunctionofinterpreting thelawandtheConstitutionisvestedinthejudiciaryas provided by Article 119 of the Constitution.
The interpretationoftheConstitutionasalegalinstrumentisthe functionofthecourts,thebranchofGovernmenttowhomis assignedthatdelicatetask.Therefore,byrulingashedid, theSpeakerexceededhisconstitutionalpowerashestrayed orencroachedintotheadjudicativefunctionofthecourtsof thelandwhicharemandatedtoexercisejudicialauthorityof theRepublicbyinterpretingthelawandtheConstitution.
Therefore,theprovisionsofArticle77(1)oftheConstitution asamended,andsection34oftheNationalAssembly (PowersandPrivileges)Act,cannotberelieduponasa defence.MoresothataccordingtotheRespondent’s 33 submissions,theSpeakerwasawareofthecourtcase(s) althoughnotthedetails.”[Underliningisforemphasissake] HonMembers,thequestionorissuewhetherornot,theSpeaker haspowertointerpretthelawandtheConstitution,didnotfallfor decision.Instead,whattheConstitutionalCourtwasinvitedor required to pronounce itself on,was whether or not my declarationoftheRoanParliamentaryseatvacant,waslawful.
Thus,theConstitutionalCourtinsteadofconfiningitselftothe specificcomplaintbeforeit,thecourtwentoutsidetheremitof thecomplaintitwasinvitedtohearandadjudicate,tocomment onamatterthathadnotevenbeencanvassedbytheparties.Iam inspiredinpositingtheprecedingproposition,bytheobservation ofthe Supreme Courtin the case ofMurrayandRoberts ConstructionLimitedandKaddouraConstructionLimitedv LusakaPremierHealthLimitedandIndustrialDevelopment CorporationofSouthAfricaLimited,AppealNumber141of2016 (unreported).In thiscase,justiceKajimanga in delivering the judgmentofthecourt(whichwasofcourse,reviewingajudgment ofatrialjudge),observedasfollowsatpageJ16: “However,insteadofconfininghimselftothisspecific application,thetrialjudgewentbeyondhisjurisdictionby makingdecisionsonmattersthathadnotbeencanvassed bytheparties,undertheguiseof‘inherentjurisdiction.’ 34 Therefore,theobservationbytheConstitutionalCourtthat,the Speakerhasnopowertointerpretthelaw andtheConstitution, wasmadebytheway.Or,whatinlegalparlanceispopularly referredtoasobiterdictumordicta.
2.1 OBITERDICTUM What,then,isobiterdictum?GranvilleWilliams,inanelementary, butvery usefulbook,entitled:Learning the Law,Fourteenth Edition (London,Thomson Reuters,2010),which was first published in 1945,and has been introducing students to ‘foundation’skillsneededtostudylaweffectively,forthelast75 years,explainsatpages103–104,themeaningofobiterdictum, inthefollowingterms: “Incontrastwithratiodecidendiistheobiterdictum.The latterisameresaying“bytheway,”achanceremark,which isnotbindinguponfuturecourts,thoughitmayberespected accordingtothereputationofthejudge,theeminence,and thecircumstancesinwhichitcametobepronounced.An examplewouldbearuleoflawstatedmerelybywayof analogyorillustration,orasuggestedruleuponwhichthe 35 decisionisnotfinallyrested.Thereasonfornotregardingan obiterdictum asbindingisthatitwasprobablymade withoutfullconsiderationofthecasesonthepoint,andthat, ifverybroadinitsterms,itwasprobablymadewithoutafull considerationofalltheconsequencesthatmayfollowfrom it;alternativelythejudgemaynothaveexpresseda concludedopinion”.
Similarly,ByranAGarner,inBlack’sLawDictionary,atpage1177, definesobiterdictum,inthefollowingterms: “Ajudicialcommentmadewhiledeliveringajudicialopinion, butonethatisunnecessarytothedecisioninthecase,and thereforenotprecedential..Strictlyspeakingan‘obiter dictum’isaremarkmadeoropinionexpressedbyajudge,in hisdecisionuponacause,‘bytheway’-thatis,incidentallyor collaterally,andnotdirectlyuponthequestionbeforethe court;oritisanystatementoflawenunciatedbythejudgeor courtmerelybywayofillustration,argument,analogy,or suggestion….” Furthermore,ProfessorMulelaMargaretMunalula,now ajustice intheConstitutionalCourt,inherbookentitled:LegalProcess: Zambian Cases, Legislation and Commentaries (Lusaka, 36 UniversityofZambiaPress,2004),expressesthisview point, regardingthemeaningofobiterdictum,atpage212: “Obiterdicta–inthecourseofhisjudgment,ajudge sometimesexpresseshisopinionuponapointoflawwhich isnotnecessaryforthedecisionofthecase;suchan expressionofopinionistermedanobiterdictum.Obiter dicta,evenofthehighesttribunalintheland,arenotbinding onanycourt,howeverhumble,butifmadebyaneminent judge,theyaremostvaluableasreasonedstatements,and theymayverywellinfluencethecourtsonalateroccasion.” HonMembers,theterm obiterdictum,isusuallycontrasted,in legalparlance,with a twin concept;ratiodecidendi.Ratio decidendiasdefinedbyByranAGarner,inBlacks’LawDictionary, atpage1376,means: “Theprincipleorruleoflawonwhichacourt’sdecisionis foundedortheruleoflawonwhichalatercourtthinksthat apreviouscourtfoundeditsdecision;ageneralrulewithout whichacasemusthavebeendecidedotherwise.” Further,GranvilleWilliamsoffersthefollowinginsight(atpages 93and94),regardingtheconceptofratiodecidendi: 37 “Englishcourtsareobligedtofollowpreviousdecisionsof Englishcourtswithinmoreorlesswelldefinedlimits.Thisis calledthedoctrineofprecedent.Thepartofacasethatis saidtopossessauthorityistheratiodecidendi,thatistosay, theruleoflawuponwhichadecisionisfounded........the ratiodecidendiofacasecanbedefinedasthematerial factsofthecaseplusthedecisionthereon.” Ratiodecidendiisthereforetheactualreasoninguponwhicha court’s decision is founded and,as such,itis authoritative, bindingandconstitutesthejudicialprecedentforfuturecases.
2.2 POWER OF SPEAKER TO INTERPRET THE LAW AND CONSTITUTION SincetheConstitutionalCourtobservedorsuggestedthatthe Speakerhasnopowerormandatetointerpretthelaw andthe Constitution,Iwillconductabriefsurveyrelatingtotheexercise ofthepowerormandatebytheSpeaker,tointerpretthelawand theConstitution.
First,Iwilladverttothehighwatercaseof AttorneyGeneralandMovementofMultipartyDemocracy(MMD) vAkashambatwaMbikusitaLewanikaandOthers(1993-1994)Z.R 38 164.Inthatcase,therespondentsresignedfrom theMovement forMultipartyDemocracy(MMD),thepartythatsponsoredtheir election to the NationalAssembly.
Subsequent,to their resignation,theNationalSecretaryofMMD,wrotetotheSpeaker oftheNationalAssembly,informinghim thattheRespondents werenolongermembersoftheparty.Inconsequenceofthe party’sofficialnotification,theSpeakerwrotetotheRespondents informing them,thatin terms of Article 71 (2)(c) of the Constitution,whichproscribedfloor-crossing,theyceasedtobe Members ofParliament,effective from the date the Speaker received the officialnotification oftheirresignation from the MMD.TheMembers,dissatisfied withtheSpeaker’sdecision, commencedanactionintheHighCourtcontendingthatalthough theyhadresignedfrom thepartyonwhoseticketstheyhadbeen electedtotheNationalAssembly,theyretainedtheirseatsas Independents.
They,thus,asked the courtto declare the Speaker’sdecisionthattheirseatswerevacant,nullandvoid.

BoththeHighCourt,asacourtoffirstinstance,andtheSupreme Court,onappeal,upheldtheSpeaker’sdecisionthattheMembers had vacated theirseats on the day they announced their resignationfrom theMMD.
Second,isthe case ofTetamashimbavTheSpeakerofthe NationalAssembly,theChairmanoftheElectoralCommissionof 39 Zambia,andtheAttorney-General2001/HP/0675(unreported).Mr BennyTetamashimba,whowaselectedMemberofParliament forSolweziCentralParliamentaryConstituencyon a National Party (NP) ticket,later,by virtue of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)between NP and the United Party for NationalDevelopment(UPND),wasappointedSecretary-General of the UPND.Following a Point of Order questioning Mr Tetamashimba’scontinuedstayintheHousewhenhehaddual membership contrary to Article 71 ofthe Constitution,the Speakerruledthat,byassumingthepositionofSecretary-General oftheUPND,MrBennyTetamashimbahad,indeed,becomea memberofthe UPND.The Speakeraccordinglydeclared Mr Tetamashimba’sseatvacant.Dissatisfiedwiththedecisionofthe Speaker,hechallengeditintheHighCourt.Inpassingjudgment, Mutale,J,heldasfollows: “HebecameaUPNDmember...itunfortunatelymadehima dualmembercontrarytotheprovisionsofArticle71,and drawshimintothejurisdictionoftheSpeaker...theSpeaker foundthattheapplicantdidhavedualmembership...there was,therefore,no illegality,impropriety,malice or unreasonablenesswhentheSpeakermadethatdecision.” Lastlyandmostrecently,inthecaseofGeoffreyBwalyaMwamba vAttorneyGeneral(2016)Vol2,Z.R.296,aPointofOrderwas 40 raisedenquiringwhetherornot,itwasinorderforMrGeoffrey BwalyaMwamba,MP,whowaselectedtotheNationalAssembly ontheticketofthePatrioticParty(PF),tocontinuesittinginthe HousefollowinghisdecisiontoassumethepositionofVice- President(Administration)oftheUPND.InresolvingthePointof Order,IconstruedArticle71(1)(c)oftheConstitution,andIalso interpretedsection2oftheSocietiesAct,Chapter119ofthe LawsofZambia.Insodoing,Iarrivedattheconclusionthat,by acceptingthepositionofVice-PresidentoftheUPND,apartyon whosetickethewasnotelectedtotheNationalAssembly,Mr GeoffreyBwalyaMwamba,hadcontravenedArticle71(1)(c)of theConstitutionand,asaconsequence,vacatedhisseat.Asa result,IproceededtodeclaretheKasamaCentralParliamentary seatvacant.
MydecisiontodeclaretheKasamaCentralParliamentaryseat vacant,wassubsequentlychallengedandadjudicateduponbythe HighCourtinthecaseofGeoffreyBwalyaMwambavAttorney- General2015/HP/1182(unreported),inwhichMrJusticeJM Siavwapaheldasfollows,atpageJ26: “IfindthatArticle71oftheConstitutionisnotapplicableas thedeclarationofthePetitioner’sseatvacantbytheSpeaker hadnothingtodowiththePetitioner’sexpulsionfromthe PatrioticFrontParty.Theseatwasdeclaredvacanton 41 accountofthePetitioner’sdecisiontobecomeamemberof theoppositionUnitedPartyforNationalDevelopment,when heacceptedhisappointmentasitsVice-Presidentfor Administrationon22ndJuly,2015.” Itisself-evident,HonMembers,inalltheprecedingcases,that thevariousSpeakers(including ofcoursemyself),interpreted relevantprovisionsofthelaw ingeneral,andtheConstitutionin particular,inordertoruleonthePointsofOrderinquestion.
Inaddition,HonMembers,therearevariouspiecesoflegislation thatregulatetheoperationsoftheNationalAssembly.Notable among these are:the Constitution itself,and the National Assembly (Powers and Privileges)Act,which regulates the powers,immunitiesandprivilegesoftheHouse.Insofarasthe NationalAssemblyisconcerned,itisgovernedby,Articles61to 89oftheConstitution.Consequently,theSpeakermay,from time, totimeberequired,tointerprettheprovisionsofthelawandthe Constitution.Toillustrate,IwillrefertoafewArticlesbelow.
First,Article64(1)governstheintroductionofBillsintheNational Assembly,andprovidesasfollows: “64(1)AMemberofParliamentorMinistermayintroducea 42 BillintheNationalAssembly.” Second,Articles65(1)and(2)goesontoprovideasfollows: “65(1)AmoneyBillshallbeintroducedbyaMinister.
(2)AMoneyBillmeansaBillthatprovidesfor,amongother matters— (a)theimposition,repeal,remission,alterationorregulation oftaxes; (b)theimpositionofchargesontheConsolidatedFundor anyotherpublicfund,orthevariationorrepealofanyof thosecharges; (c)theappropriation,receipt,custody,investment,issueor auditofaccountsofpublicmonies; (d)thegrantofpublicmoneytoapersonorauthorityorthe variationorrevocationofsuchgrant; (e)theraisingorguaranteeingofaloanortherepaymentof it;or (f)mattersincidentaltomattersspecifiedinthisclause.” InviewofArticles64(1)and65(1)and(2),aquestionmayarise, 43 throughaPointofOrder,astowhetheraMoneyBillmovedbya Member,isproperlybeforetheNationalAssembly.Inorderto resolvesuchaPointofOrder,theSpeakerwillberequiredto interprettheprovisionsofArticles64(1)and65(1)and(2).
Third,Article67(6)oftheConstitutionisinthefollowingterms: “AMemberofParliamentwhointendstochallengea statutoryinstrument,onitsconstitutionality,shallfollowthe procedurelaiddownintheStandingOrdersoftheNational Assembly.” InordertoadmitaMember’schallengeofastatutoryinstrument underArticle67(6),theSpeakermayberequiredtodetermine whetherthechallengeraisesaconstitutionalissueornot.Inorder todothis,theSpeakerwillberequiredtointerprettherelevantlaw, vis-à-vistheprovisionsoftheConstitution.
Fourth,itwillberecalledthatonWednesday,13thMarch,2019,a PointofOrderwasraisedbytheLeaderoftheOpposition,and MemberofParliamentforMonzeCentral,HonJJMwiimbu,MP, on whetherthe Presidentwas in orderto nominate MrR Nakacinda,MP,whoisamemberofanoppositionpoliticalparty, asaMemberofParliament.Inresponse,Iruled,inlinewiththe doctrineofexclusivecognisance,thatalthoughMrRNakacindais 44 amemberofanoppositionpoliticalparty,hisnominationtothe House by the President,was made in accordance with the provisionsofArticles68and69oftheConstitution.
Andwas, therefore,inorder.Toarriveatthatconclusion,Ihadtointerpret the provisions ofArticles 68 and 69 relating to nominated MembersofParliament.

Fifth,Article 80 ofthe Constitution relating to Parliamentary Committees,providesasfollows: “80(1)TheNationalAssemblymayestablishParliamentary Committees.

(2)ParliamentaryCommitteesshallbeestablishedatthe firstsittingoftheNationalAssemblyafterageneralelection, andaftertheelectionoftheSpeakerandtheDeputy Speakers.
(3)TheNationalAssemblyshall,inselectingmembersofa ParliamentaryCommittee,ensurethatthereisequitable representationofthepoliticalpartiesholdingseatsinthe NationalAssembly,andindependentMembersofParliament.
(4)TheStandingOrdersshallprovideforthecategories, functionsandproceduresofParliamentaryCommittees.” 45 A questionmay,inthisconnection,arisewhetherornot,the Parliamentary Committees have been equitably composed, havingregardtotherepresentationofthepoliticalpartiesholding seatsintheNationalAssembly,andIndependentMembersof Parliament,asprovidedinArticle80(3)above.Toresolvesucha question,theSpeakerwillinevitablyberequiredtointerpretArticle 80(3),inlightofsuchaPointofOrder.
BeyondtheConstitution,section9A oftheNationalAssembly (PowersandPrivileges)Act,grantstheNationalAssembly,the powertoinquireintooffencesagainstit.Tothisextent,section 9A,providesasfollows: “9A.SubjecttotheConstitution,theAssemblyhasthepower andjurisdictionnecessarytoinquireinto,anactoromission, matterorthing,amountingtocontemptofParliament contrarytosectionnineteen,oracontraventionofthe StandingOrders,andrulesofparliamentarypracticeand procedure.” Inordertodeterminewhetherapersonhascommittedcontempt againstthe Assemblyundersectionnineteenofthe Act,an interpretationoftheprovisionsofsectionnineteen,isinevitable, inresponsetoacomplaintthatanoffencehasbeencommitted undersectionnineteenoftheAct.
46 Itis clearfrom the preceding statutory provisions,thatthe Speaker,mayberequired,from timetotime,tointerpretthelaws ofthelandingeneral,andtheConstitutioninparticular;atleast,in sofarastheyrelatetothefunctioningandmanagementofthe NationalAssembly.

2.3 WHATISAPOINTOFORDER?

HonMembers,atthisjuncture,Iwillproceedtoconsiderthetrue natureorcharacterofaPointofOrder.
HonMembers,itis instructivetonotethatinrenderingRulingsarisingfrom divers PointsofOrder,theSpeakerdoesnotperform anadjudicativeor judicialfunction.Instead,theSpeaker’sRulingsprovideguidance onproceduralrulesandthegeneralconductofbusinessofthe House.AccordingtotheNationalAssemblyMembers’Handbook, 2006,aPointofOrderisdefined,anditspurposeisstatedinthe followingtermsatpage25: “AquestionraisedbyaMemberwhobelievesthattherules ofprocedureoftheHousehavebeenincorrectlyappliedor overlookedduringtheproceedings.” Further,M N Kauland S L Shakdher,in theirbook entitled: PracticeandProcedureofParliament,SeventhEdition,(NewDelhi, LokSabha,2016),defineaPointofOrder,andexplainitspurpose 47 (atpage1042),inthefollowingterms: “AnymembercanandshouldinvitetheSpeaker’simmediate attentiontoanyinstanceofwhatheconsidersabreachof orderortransgressionofanylawoftheHouse,writtenor unwritten,whichtheChairhasfailedtoperceiveandhemay alsoseektheguidanceandassistanceoftheChairin respectofanyobscuritiesinprocedure.APointofOrder should,therefore,relatetotheinterpretationorenforcement oftherulesofprocedure,andconductofBusinessinthe HouseorconventionsorsuchArticlesoftheConstitutionas regulatethebusinessoftheHouse,andmustraisea questionwhichiswithinthecognizanceoftheSpeaker.” Additionally,RobertBlackburn&AndrewKennon,withSirMichael Wheeler-Booth,intheirbookentitled:Griffith&RyleonParliament -Functions,PracticeandProcedures,SecondEdition,(Thomson Reuters(Legal)Limited,2003),elucidatesaPointofOrder,inthe followingtermsatpage278: “Apointoforderasproperlyunderstood,relatestothe practicesorproceduresoftheHouseandessentiallytoa matteronwhichtheChairhaspowertotakeaction...” 48 From theseauthorities,itisclearthataPointofOrderisraisedin ordertodrawtheattentionoftheSpeakertoaperceivedbreach ofaproceduralrule,orpractice.
Andrequirestheimmediate attention,and guidanceoftheSpeaker.

Therefore,whenthe SpeakerrendersaRulinginresponsetoaPointofOrder,heor sheisnotadjudicating,inthesenseofadisputebetweentwoor moreparties;eachwithaninteresttoprotectforwhichaRulingor judgmentisexpectedorawaited.Butrather,asalreadypointed out,itisameansbywhichtheattentionoftheSpeakerorother presidingofficer,thebreachofarule,conventionorpractice,is raisedordrawn.
2.4 JUDICIALREVIEW OFACTIONSAND DECISIONSOFTHE NATIONALASSEMBLY HonMembers,thereisanothermatterthatIwouldliketodraw yourattentionto.

TheactionsanddecisionsoftheNational Assembly,aswellasthatoftheSpeakerandotherpresiding officers,aresubjecttojudicialreview.Toillustrate,Iwillreferto twodecidedcases.First,isthecaseoftheAttorneyGeneraland SpeakeroftheNationalAssemblyvLudwigSondashi(2003)Z.R.
42.Inthiscase,followingafailedcoupde’tatin1997,herein Zambia,DrLudwigSondashi,whowasaMemberofParliament forSolweziCentralConstituency,inresponsetoaquestionposed 49 inaninterview withareporter,outsidetheHouse,statedthat sometimes coups, can create positive change.
Following publication of the interview in a Newspaper,the National Assemblysuspendedhim forfour(4)monthsformakingthe statement.Followingthesuspension,DrLudwigSondashiapplied forjudicialreview intheHighCourt,tohavethedecisionofthe NationalAssemblytosuspendhim from sittingsoftheHouse, andenjoyingtheprivilegesandbenefitsofhisoffice,includingthe paymentofhis personalemoluments and sitting allowances, withheld,withoutlawfulgrounds,declarednullandvoid.
JudgmentintheHighCourt,wasenteredinfavourofDrLudwig Sondashi.And the decision ofthe NationalAssembly was quashed.ThebasisfortheHighCourt’sdecision,wasthatthe statementwasmadeoutsidetheHouse,inhisindividualcapacity, and inexerciseofhisfreedom ofspeech.On appealbythe AttorneyGeneral,theSupremeCourtupheldthedecisionofthe HighCourt,anddismissedtheappeal.Further,theSupremeCourt heldthattheHighCourthadconstitutionaljurisdictiontohearand determineapplicationsforjudicialreviewinmattersreviewingthe decisionsoftheNationalAssembly.
Second,in the case ofAttorneyGeneralandSpeakerofthe NationalAssemblyvThePeople(1999)Z.R.186,theApplicants 50 werestakeholdersinrelationtothemattersthattheUniversityBill of1999,intended to address.
And theGovernmenthad not consultedthem.TheApplicantsalsofearedthattheproposedBill would encroach upon theirrights and freedoms underthe subsistingUniversityAct.TheSupremeCourtheld;interalia,that theHighCourtwasnotbarredfrom relyingontheprovisionsof Order53 ofthe Supreme CourtRules ofEngland,governing judicialreview.Thustheyappliedforjudicialreview,impeaching theNationalAssembly’spowertoenacttheBillintolaw.
HonMembersitisclearfrom thesetwocasesthatthedecisions oftheNationalAssemblyandtheSpeakerandothersPresiding Officers,areamenabletojudicialreview.
2.5 EXCLUSIVECOGNISANCE However,grantedtheprincipleofexclusivecognisance(which gives Parliament the power to regulate its own internal procedures,asencapsulatedinArticle77(1)oftheConstitution, andsection34oftheNationalAssembly(PowersandPrivileges) Act),judicialreview is only exercisable after the National Assemblyingeneral,ortheSpeakerorotherPresidingofficersin particularhaveperformedafunctionorexercisedapowerin question.

51 Tobesure,first,Article77(1)oftheConstitutionprovidesas follows: “77.
(1)SubjecttothisArticleandArticle78,theNational Assemblyshallregulateitsownprocedureandmake StandingOrdersfortheconductofitsbusiness.” Second,section 34 ofthe NationalAssembly (Powers and Privileges)Act,providesasfollows: “34.NeithertheAssembly,theSpeakernoranyofficershall besubjecttothejurisdictionofanycourtinrespectofthe exerciseofanypowerconferredonorvestedinthe Assembly,theSpeaker,orsuchofficerbyorunderthe Constitution,theStandingOrders,andthisAct.” My understanding orinterpretation ofArticle 77 (1)ofthe Constitution,andsection34oftheNationalAssembly(Powers andPrivileges)Act,isthattheNationalAssemblyhaspower,and jurisdictiontoconductitsinternalaffairs.Asamatteroffact,the ConstitutionalCourtacknowledged the doctrine ofexclusive cognisanceinthecaseofChishimbaKambwilivAttorneyGeneral (supra),whenitreferredbothtoArticle77(1)oftheConstitution, andsection34oftheNationalAssembly(PowersandPrivileges) 52 Act(atpageJ31),inthefollowingterms: “WealsonotethatbyvirtueofArticle77(1)ofthe Constitution,asreadtogetherwithsection34oftheNational Assembly(PowersandPrivileges)Act,whichwequoted earlier,theNationalAssemblyhasexclusivepower,and jurisdictionovertheconductofitsinternalaffairs.” Ihave alreadystated thatthe actions and decisions,ofthe NationalAssembly,aswellasthatoftheSpeaker,andother Presidingofficers,aresubjecttojudicialreview.Aquestionthat maybeposedoraskedhere,isthis:atwhatstagemaythecourts oflawinterveneandconducttheirreview?Inordertoanswerthe precedingquestion,IwilladverttosomeIndiancases.
First,inthecaseofHemChandraSenGuptaandOthersvthe SpeakeroftheLegislativeAssemblyofWestBengal,AIR1956, CAL378,theChiefMinisterofWestBengalhadgivennoticeto movea motion fortheWestBengalLegislativeAssemblyto approveaproposalfortheunionoftheStatesofWestBengal, and Bihar.Opposed to the merger,the petitioners soughtto restrain the ChiefMinisterfrom pursuing the motion.
The petitioners also soughtto restrain the Union ofIndia from bringinganyBillorlegislationinParliamentforthepurposesof 53 uniting the two States.In resolving the issue whethercourt process could be used to stallan internalprocess ofthe Assembly,thecourtobservedatparagraph22ofthejudgmentas follows: “…Thecourtscannotatthisstageseektoregulatethe procedureoftheHouseandarrogatetoitselfthepowersof theSpeaker.If,however,alawwaspassedoraresolution adoptedoramotioncarried,whichisnotinaccordancewith theConstitution,suchalaw,resolution,ormotioncouldbe declaredinvalidbythecourt”.
Thecourtwentfurthertoholdatparagraph23ofthejudgment, asfollows: “TheConstitutionlaysdowntherespectivejurisdictionsof theLegislaturesandthecourts.Itisthebusinessofthe Legislaturestomakelaws,andofthecourtstoadminister them.Thepowers,privilegesandimmunitiesoftheState Legislaturesandtheirmembershavebeenlaiddowninthe Constitution.WithintheLegislature,membershaveabsolute freedomofspeechanddiscussion(Article194).Subjectto theprovisionsoftheConstitution,theycanregulatetheir ownprocedure,(Articles208,212).
Insuchmattersandwithintheirallottedspheres,theyare 54 supremeandcannotbecalledintoaccountbythecourtsof theland.Thecourtsarethereforenotinterestedinthe formativestagesofanylaw.Evenwherealawhasbeen promulgated,itisnotthedutyofthecourtstoactina supervisorycharacterandrectifythedefects“suomotu.” IndecidingtheGuptacase,thecourtreferredtotheEnglishcase oftheQueenvLordsCommissionersoftheTreasury[1872]7Q.B.

387,whereitwasheldthattheLegislaturehadtheexclusive cognisancetodecideitsownaffairs.
Thus,intheGuptacase (supra),the courtadopted the statementofBlackburn J,as follows: “Imustobserveinsayingthisthatthereisnottheslightest intentiononmyparttoquestiontheexclusiveprerogativeof theHouseofCommonsinvotingthemoney.Aslongasthe thingremains“infieri,”aresolutionintheHouse,itcouldnot Ibelieve,bebroughtproperlybeforethiscourt.Butwhenthe moneyhasbeenvoted,andthemoneyhasbeengranted, andanAppropriationActhasbeenpassed,thenithas becomeanActoftheLegislature,andwemustconstrueit whenitcomesbeforeusasweshoulddoanyotherAct.” Second,inanothercaseoftheStateofKeralavR.SudarsanBabu andOthersAIR1984,Ker1,thecourtclarifiedthebasisupon 55 whichproceedingsoftheLegislaturecouldbechallenged.The courtheldatparagraph26ofthejudgmentasfollows: “…WhethertheLegislaturehasbeenfunctioningwithinthe permissiblelimitsofitslegislativepowerisamatterwhich quiteoftenarisesforexaminationbeforecourts.Evenso, immunityisconferredontheLegislatureunderclause(1)of Article212.TheproceedingsintheLegislaturemaynotbe challengedonthegroundofmereirregularity,butmaybe challengedasillegalorunconstitutional.Theproceedingsof theLegislaturemaybecomeunconstitutional,ifitviolates theprovisionsoftheConstitution,andthentherewouldbea caseforexamination.” TheimportofthedictaofBlackburnJ,citedabove,isineffect that,noactioncanbecommencedtochallengeaprocessofthe NationalAssembly,beforeitiscompletedandadecisionismade.
Thusanychallenge,mustcomeafterthedecisionismade.Ido notthinkonecansaymore,bywayofprinciplethanthis.
Hon Members,therefore,in view ofthe foregoing,Iam not persuadedbytheobservationorsuggestionbytheConstitutional CourtintheKambwilicase,thattheSpeakerhasnoconstitutional mandatetointerpretthelaw,andtheConstitution.Letmeputit plainly.Idonot,withrespect,agreewiththeConstitutionalCourt, 56 thattheSpeakerhasnoconstitutionalmandatetointerpretboth thelaw andtheConstitution.Onthecontrary,itiscrystalclear, thatentrenchedparliamentarypracticeandprocedure,aswellas precedents established by the courts of law themselves, categoricallyconfirm thefactthattheSpeakerhaspowerto interpretboththelaw andtheConstitution.Toholdotherwise, would,inmyopinion,notonlyparalysethesmoothfunctioningof theNationalAssembly,butalso possiblythrow thenation in unnecessaryconstitutionalcrisis.And,aboveall,itwouldalsobe contrarytoprinciple.Consequently,Iwillproceedtointerpretboth therelevantlaw,andconstitutionalprovisions,advertedtointhe PointofOrderraisedbyMrGGNkombo,MP.
3.0 THE POINT OF ORDER VIS-À-VIS THE CONCEPT OR DOCTRINEOFSUBJUDICE Iwillnowpasstothethirdpartoftheruling,whichaddressesthe actualPointofOrder,and culminatesintheconclusion.Hon MemberswillrecallthatinthePointofOrder,MrGGNkombo, MP,raisedthequestion,whetherornottheHouseisinorderto proceed with consideration of the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment)BillNo.10of2019,considering,inhisview,thatthe matterissubjudice,followingacourtactioninitiatedbyMrDipak 57 Patel,againsttheMinisterofFinance,andtheAttorneyGeneralin theConstitutionalCourt,incausenumber2020/CCC/005.Hon Members,beforeIconsidertheactualPointofOrder,Iwillbegin thispartoftheruling,byaddressingtheconceptordoctrineof subjudice.
HonMembers,itiscommonknowledgethatwhiletheNational Assemblyhastheprivilegetodiscussanddeliberateuponany matterwithoutinhibitionorexternalinterference,overtheyears, theNationalAssemblyhasdevelopedaself-imposedrestriction on Members debating matters thatare pending adjudication beforethecourtsoflaw.Thisrestrictionissecuredorenabled throughthedoctrineofsubjudice.Whatthendoestheterm sub judicemean?

Theterm ‘subjudice’,hasbeenvariouslydefined.
Tobeginwith,BryanAGarner,inBlack’sLaw Dictionary,Ninth Edition (Dallas,Thomson Reuters,2009)defines subjudice, laconically,(atpage1562),asfollows: “Beforethecourtorjudgefordetermination.” JonathanLaw,editorinthepublishedonline,Oxford:ADictionary ofLaw,NinthEdition(London,OxfordUniversityPress,2018), definessubjudice,inthefollowingterms: “1..... 58 2.AparliamentarypracticeinwhichtheSpeakerprevents anyreferenceinquestionsordebatestomatterspending decisionincourtproceedings(civilorcriminal).Inthecase ofcivilproceedings,hehaspowertowaivetheruleifa matterofnationalinterestisinvolved.” Further,andinagreeingwithBryanAGarner,andJonathanLaw, JenniferSpeake,andMarkLaFlaur,intheironlinepublication:The Oxford EssentialDictionaryofForeignTermsin English,First Edition(London,OxfordUniversityPress,2002),definesubjudice asfollows: “Lawundertheconsiderationofajudge,andtherefore prohibitedfrompublicdiscussion.” HonMembers,itisinstructivetonote,here,thattheNational Assembly(PowersandPrivileges)Act,Chapter12oftheLawsof Zambia,andtheNationalAssemblyStandingOrders,2016,donot provideforthesubjudicerule.Notwithstanding,StandingOrder 179,allowstheHouseto referto relevantpracticesin other CommonwealthParliaments,inresolvingamatternotprovided forinourownrules.Foravoidanceofdoubt,StandingOrder179, isexpressedinthefollowingterms: 59 “Inacasenotprovidedforintherulesofprocedure,orina casewherethereisadifferenceofopinionastothe interpretationofanysuchrules,theSpeakershalldecide, takinginto accountthecustomsandusagesofthe Assemblysinceitsinception,andtherelevantpracticesin otherCommonwealthParliaments.” Accordingly,theNationalAssemblyofZambia,isatlibertyto adoptpracticesinotherCommonwealthParliaments,insofaras thesubjudicerule,isconcerned.Atthisjuncture,Iwilltherefore proceed to advertto the practices in otherCommonwealth Parliaments,insofarasthedoctrineofsubjudiceisconcerned.
First,I.C.Harris,inhisbookentitled:HouseofRepresentatives Practice,FifthEdition,(Canberra,CanPrintCommunicationsPty Ltd,2005),explains the application ofsubjudicerule in the CanadianHouseofCommons,(atpages505and506),inthe followingterms: “Notwithstandingitsfundamentalrightanddutytoconsider anymatterifitisthoughttobeinthepublicinterest,the Houseimposesarestrictiononitselfinthecaseofmatters awaitingorunderadjudicationinacourtoflaw.Thisis knownasthesubjudiceconvention.Theconventionisthat, 60 subjecttotherightoftheHousetolegislateonanymatter, mattersawaitingadjudicationinacourtoflawshouldnotbe broughtforwardindebate,motionsorquestions.Theorigin oftheconventionappearstohavebeenthedesireof Parliamenttopreventcommentanddebatefromexertingan influenceonjuriesandfrom prejudicingthepositionof partiesandwitnessesincourtproceedings.”Underliningis foremphasissake Second,HarryEvans,in his bookentitled:Odgers’Australian Senate Practice, Twelfth Edition (Canberra, CanPrint CommunicationsPtyLimited,2008),explains,(atpage198),the AustralianpracticeintheSenate,inthefollowingterms: “Thesubjudiceconventionisarestrictionondebatewhich theSenate imposesuponitself,wherebydebateisavoided whichcouldinvolveasubstantialdangerofprejudiceto proceedingsbeforeacourt,unlesstheSenateconsidersthat thereisanoverridingrequirementfortheSenatetodiscuss amatterofpublicinterest.Theconventionisnotcontained intheStandingOrders,butitisinterpretedandappliedbythe ChairandtheSenate,accordingtocircumstances.” Inthesamebook,HarryEvans,makesreference(atpage199),to 61 apassageinarulingrenderedbyPresidentMcMullinin1969,as follows: “Asageneralrule,theChairwillnotallowreferencesto matterswhichareawaitingorareunderadjudicationinthe courts,ifsuchreferencemayprejudiceproceedings.Butit doesnotnecessarilyfollowthatjustbecauseamatteris beforeacourt,everyaspectofitmustbesubjudiceand beyondthelimitsofpermissibledebateinParliament.That wouldbetoorestrictiveoftherightsofParliament.” HarryEvans,goesontostate,(atpage200),asfollows: “Itwouldbeanunduerestrictiononthefreedom ofthe Senatetodebatemattersofpublicinterestifdebatewereto berestrainedsimplyonthebasisthatmattersmaycome beforeacourtinthefuture.Thusthefactthatwritshave been issued,which does notnecessarilymean that proceedingswillensue,doesnotgivecauseforthesub judice convention to be invoked.” [Underlining is for emphasissake] Third,RobertBlackburnandAndrewKennon,intheirbookentitled: Parliament:Functions,PracticeandProcedures,SecondEdition, 62 (London,Sweet&Maxwell,2003),explainshowtheconventionis interpreted,andappliedinEngland(atpage287),asfollows: “Thesubjudiceruledoesnot,however,applytolegislative businessorwhereaministerialdecisionisinquestion... TheSpeakerhasdiscretiontowaivetheruleandwould normallydosowhenthecaseinquestionconcerned issuesofnationalimportancesuchastheeconomy,public order,oressentialservices.
[Underliningisforemphasis sake].” Fourth,AudreyO’Brien and MarcBosc,in theirbookentitled: House ofCommons Procedure and Practice,Second Edition, (Quebec,Edition Yvon Blais,2009),describe the Canadian practiceinthefollowingtermsatpage627: Thesubjudiceconventionisfirstandforemostavoluntary exerciseofrestraintonthepartoftheHousetoprotectan accusedperson,orotherpartytoacourtactionorjudicial inquiryfromanyprejudicialeffectofpublicdiscussionofthe issue.
Secondly,theconventionalsoexists,asSpeaker Frasernoted,“tomaintainaseparationandmutualrespect betweenlegislativeandjudicialbranchesofgovernment.” However,asSpeakerSauveexplained,thesubjudice conventionhasneverstoodinthewayoftheHouse 63 consideringaprimafaciematterofprivilegevitaltothe publicinterest,ortotheeffectiveoperationoftheHouseand itsmembers.”[Underliningisforemphasissake] Fifth,M NKaulandSLShakdherintheirbookentitled:Practice andProcedureofParliament,SeventhEdition,(New Delhi,Lok Sabha,2016),describetheIndianpractice(atpages1190and 1191),inthefollowingterms: “ItistheabsoluteprivilegeoftheLegislaturesandMembers thereoftodiscussanddeliberateuponallmatterspertaining tothegovernanceofthecountryanditspeople.Freedomof speechontheFlooroftheHouseistheessenceof parliamentarydemocracy.
Certainrestrictionsonthis freedomhavetoalimiteddegree,beenself-imposed.One suchrestrictionisthatthediscussiononmatterspending adjudicationbeforecourtsoflawshouldbeavoidedonthe FlooroftheHouse,sothatthecourtsfunctionuninfluenced byanythingsaidoutsidetheambitoftrialindealingwith suchmatters.” M NKaulandSLShakdher(supra),goontorefertoarulingof theIndianSpeakeronthissubject,(atpage1191),asfollows: 64 “Therulewhetheramotionwhichrelatestoamatterwhich isunderadjudicationbyacourtoflawshouldbeadmittedor discussedintheHousehastobeinterpretedstrictly.While ontheonehandtheChairhastoensurethatnodiscussion intheHouseshouldprejudicethecourseofjustice,theChair hasalsotoseethattheHouseisnotdebarredfrom discussinganurgentmatterofpublicimportanceonthe groundthatasimilar,allied,orlinkedmatterisbeforeacourt oflaw.Thetestofsubjudiceinmyopinionshouldbethat themattersoughttoberaisedintheHouseissubstantially identicalwiththeoneonwhichacourtoflawhasto adjudicate.”[Underliningisforemphasissake] Finally,M.N.KaulandS.LShakdher(supra),goontostatethe followingatpage1191: “Iftheruleofsubjudiceweretobemadeapplicabletolegislation, itwouldnotonlymakeLegislaturessubordinatetothecourtsin thatmatter,butwouldmakeenactmentsimpossible,because numerouscasesconcerningalargenumberofstatutesawait adjudicationatalltimesinonecourtortheother.Parliament’s mainfunctiontomakelawswillthuscometoastandstill... Legislaturesaresupremeandsovereigninthematterofmaking lawsandthereisnobarontheirworkinthefieldoflegislation.
65 Thelaw-makingpowerofParliamentisunfetteredwithregardto legislationevenwhenthesubjectmatteroflegislationissub judice.Whateverbethecaseandthemeritsofthecase, Parliamentcanmakeanylaw.” HonMembers,from thediscourseofthevariouslearnedauthors inparliamentarypracticesandproceduresadumbratedabove,the followingpropositionsmaybedistilled: (i)A mattercan onlybe considered subjudice,when itis actively before the courts oflaw,and is substantially identicalwiththematterbeforeacourt; (ii)The subjudicerule is a self-imposed convention by Parliamentsnottodiscussmattersthatareactivelybeing adjudicateduponbythecourts,ifitappearsthatthereisa realand substantialdanger of prejudice to the court proceedings.Thepurposeofthesubjudicerule,is,therefore, toprotectcourtproceedingsfrom beingprejudiced; (iii)Thedeterminationofwhetheramatterissubjudice,andthe application of the subjudiceconvention,is the sole discretionoftheSpeaker.Meaningthat,dependingonthe meritsofeachcase,theSpeakercansetitaside; 66 (iv)Parliaments are not debarred from discussing urgent mattersofpublicimportance; (v)Iftheruleofsubjudicewereto bemadeapplicableto legislation,itwouldnotonlymakelegislaturessubordinate tothecourtsinthatmatter,butwouldmakeenactments impossible,becausenumerouscasesconcerning a large numberofstatutes,mayhavetoawaitadjudication;and (vi)Parliamentsaresupremeandsovereigninthematterof makinglaws,andthereisnobarontheirworkinthefieldof legislation.
HonMembers,atthisjuncture,IwilldemonstratehowthisHouse hasappliedthesubjudiceruleinthepast.
3.1 APPLICATIONOFTHESUBJUDICERULE First,on22ndJuly,2009,aPointofOrderwasraisedonwhether someMembersofParliamentwereinordertoabrogatethelaw, andcontinuesittingintheHouse,insteadofattendingtosittings oftheNationalConstitutionalConference(NCC).Tothisend,The NationalConstitutionalConference ActNumber7 of2007, providedthatallMembersofParliament,weretobemembersof theNCC.Inthemeanwhile,therewasapendingactionbeforethe court,regarding theNCC.
Mypredecessor,SpeakerAmuusa 67 Mwanamwambwa,ruled thatuntilthe courtdetermined the outstanding matter,itremained subjudice.And he could, therefore,notruleonthePointofOrder.

(ParliamentaryDebates oftheSecondMeetingoftheThirdSessionoftheTenth Assembly,14thJuly–14thAugust,2009,atpage866).
Second,on15th March,2012,aPointofOrderwasraisedon whetherMembersoftheMovementforMulti-partyDemocracy (MMD),wereinordertocontinueoccupyingtheirseatsinthe House,followingthede-registrationoftheMMDpartybytheChief RegistrarofSocieties,undertheSocietiesAct,Chapter119ofthe LawsofZambia.Inrulingonthematter,Istatedthatthequestion ofde-registrationoftheMMD,andtheconsequentialactionby theChiefRegistrarofSocietiestonullifythefifty-threeseatsof theMMDMembersofParliament,wasbeforethecourtsoflaw.
Therefore,Icouldnotruleonthematter,becauseitwassub judice,untilsuchatimethatthematterwasdeterminedbythe courts.Ithereforeruledthatthestatusquoshouldbemaintained.

(ParliamentaryDebatesoftheFirstSessionoftheEleventh NationalAssembly,21stFebruary-28thMarch,2012,atpage54).
Third,on15thMarch,2013,aPointofOrderwasraisedonwhether theHousewasinordertoproceedtodebateamotionforthe removalofthelegalimmunityagainstprosecution,extendedto 68 theformerPresident,MrRupiahBwezaniBanda,whenanaction hadjustbeencommencedinthecourtsoflaw,aftertheMotion hadbeenplacedontheOrderPaper.Inresponse,Iruledineffect, thatinkeepingwiththedoctrinesofseparationofpowers,and exclusivecognizance,theHousehadthefreedom todetermine, anddischargeitsinternalproceedings.Consequently,Iallowed themotiontobedebated.
(ParliamentaryDebatesoftheSecond SessionoftheEleventhNationalAssembly,19thFebruary-15th March,2013).
Fourth,on 9th March,2016,a PointofOrderwas raised on whetherMrG Monde,thenMinisterofLivestockandFisheries, wasinordertoremainintheHouse,whenhisexpulsionfrom the United Party for NationalDevelopment (UPND),had been confirmedbyaSupremeCourtjudgment.InrenderingmyRuling,I informed the House that,whatthe courts had ruled on and dismissed,wasMrG Monde’sinterlocutoryapplicationforan interim injunction,torestraintheUPNDfrom expellinghim from theParty.
Ipointedout,thatthemainactionrelatingtothe expulsionofMrMondefrom theUPND,wasyettobedetermined.

Ifurtherpointed outthat,in anyevent,Article72 (5)ofthe Republican Constitution,required a Member’s expulsion from his/herpartytobeconfirmedbythecourts,forittobefinal.

Therefore,basedonthesubjudicerule,andArticle72(5)ofthe 69 Constitution,Icouldnotconclude,thestatusofMrMondeinthe House;itwassubjectto determinationbythecourtsoflaw.
(ParliamentaryDebatesoftheSecondMeetingoftheFifth SessionoftheEleventhNationalAssembly,9th January-11th March,2016,atpages654-657).
Fifth,on25thOctober,2017,aPointofOrderwasraised,asking whetherDrCKambwili,theerstwhileMemberofParliamentfor RoanParliamentaryConstituency,wasinordertobeintheHouse asaMemberofParliamentforthePatrioticFront(PF),granted thathehadbeenexpelledfrom theParty.Inmyruling,Iindicated thatsincetheexpulsionwasbeingadjudicateduponbythecourts oflaw,DrCKambwiliwas,inkeepingwithArticle72(5)ofthe Constitution, entitled to remain in the House, pending confirmationorotherwiseoftheexpulsion.Ithereforeruledthat DrCKambwili,MP,wasinordertoremainintheHouse.
(National Assembly Parliamentary Debates,Wednesday,25th October, 2017).
Ihavealreadynotedthat,followingtheexpulsionofDrChishimba Kambwilifrom PF,helaunchedproceedingsintheHighCourt challengingtheexpulsion.Inthecourseoftheproceedingsinthe HighCourt,DrChishimbaKambwili’sactionwasdismissedfor wantofprosecution.Followingthedismissaloftheactionfor 70 wantofprosecution,Ireceivedaletterfrom theSecretaryGeneral ofthePF,MrDaviesMwila,on6thNovember,2018,requestingme todeclaretheRoanParliamentaryseatvacant.Thebasisforthe requestwasthattheHighCourthaddismissedthematterfor wantofprosecution.MrDaviesMwilafurtherargued,thatDrC Kambwili’sappealtotheCourtofAppeal,hadnobearingtohis expulsionfrom theparty,andtherefore,couldnotpreventme from declaringtheRoanParliamentaryseatvacant.
InmyresponsetoMrDaviesMwilarequest,Iexplainedtohim, thatsincetheHighCourthadnotyetdecidedthematteronits merit,asenvisagedbyArticle72(5)oftheConstitution,Icould notproceedtodeclaretheseatvacant.Ifurtherindicatedthatthe outcomeofDrCKambwili’sappealintheCourtofAppeal,against theHighCourt’sdismissalofhiscaseforwantofprosecution, couldeventuallyhaveabearingontheoriginalcauseofaction,in whichDrC Kambwiliwaschallenging hisexpulsionfrom the PatrioticFront.Therefore,onthebasisofArticle72(5)ofthe Constitution,the doctrine ofseparation ofpowers,and the principleofsubjudice,Ideclinedto declaretheseatvacant.
Ultimately,thePatrioticFrontelectedtochallengemydecision nottodeclaretheseatvacantintheHighCourt.Ihavealready pointedoutthatthischallengewasunsuccessful,becausethe HighCourtheldthatithasnopowerorjurisdictiontointerpret 71 constitutionalprovisions.
Finally,to revertto the case ofRobertChabingaandHenry MulengavAttorney-General(supra)which Iintroduced and discussed,in thefirstpartofthisRuling,Hon Members,the Househasbeenunabletoconsidertheimpeachmentmotion, becausethemotionbecamesubjudice,themomentMrRobert ChabingaandMrHenryMulenga,commencedcourtactionto challengetherulingoftheHonFirstDeputySpeaker,thatthe impeachmentmotioncompliedwiththerelevantconstitutional provisions.
HonMembers,grantedthevariousauthoritiesthathavebeen consideredhitherto,andtheprecedentssetorlaiddownbythe House,itisclearthatthereisnohardandfastruleregardingthe applicationofthedoctrineofsubjudice.Eachcasehastobe consideredonthebasisofitspeculiarfacts,andmerits.
4.0 DECISIONONTHEPOINTOFORDER HonMembers,inordertoaddressMrG G Nkombo’sPointof Orderastowhetherornot,itissubjudicefortheHouseto proceed with consideration ofthe ConstitutionalofZambia (Amendment)BillNumber10of2019,IwilladverttoMrDipak Patel’s petition before the ConstitutionalCourt.
In the said 72 petition,Mr Dipak Patel alleged that following the 2016 amendmentto the Constitution,the Government,through the MinisterofFinancewas,notpermittedtocontractanypublicdebt, withoutthepriorapprovaloftheNationalAssembly,asprovided inArticle63(2)(d)oftheConstitution.MrPatelfurtheraverred thatdespite this,the MinisterofFinance had continued to contractloanswithoutobtainingthepriorapprovaloftheNational Assembly.Inthepremises,hesoughtthefollowingcourtreliefs: “(i)Adeclarationthatthefailurebythe1stand2ndRespondents topresentallloanscontractedandsoughttobecontractedon behalfoftheGovernmentoftheRepublicofZambia,which constitutedpublicdebt,totheNationalAssemblyforprior approvalisinbreachoftheConstitutionofZambia,asitisan illegalabrogationoftheConstitutionofZambia; (ii) A declaration that the Loans and Guarantees (Authorisation)Act,Chapter366oftheLawsofZambiaand anyotherlaw,by-law,subsidiarylegislationorgazettenotice dealingwithdebtprocurement/contractionforandonbehalf oftheGovernmentoftheRepublicofZambia,mustbe interpretedinlinewiththeprovisionsofArticle63(2)(d)as requiringpriorapprovalfromtheNationalAssembly,andthat 73 anyprovisioninanyexistinglawthatcircumvents,contradicts orisinconsistentwiththeConstitutionofZambiaisnulland voidtotheextentofsuchcontradictionorinconsistencyand oughttobestruckdownaccordingly; (iii) Anordercompellingthe1stand2ndRespondentsto presenttotheNationalAssemblyofZambia,within14daysof thejudgmentofthecourtorwithinsuchothertimeframethat thecourtmayprescribe,afullandcompletestatementofthe stateofpublicdebtcontractedfrom2016todateincludingthe termsandconditionsoftheloans;and (iv)Anorderdirectingthatfromthedateofthejudgmentof thiscourt,allpublicdebt,whetherlocalorforeign,sought tobecontractedonbehalfoftheGovernmentofthe RepublicofZambia,mustbepresentedtotheNational Assemblyforpriorapproval; (v) costsincidentaltotheseproceedings;and (vi)suchotherdeclarationororderthatthishonourablecourt maydeemfit.” HonMembers,itisinstructivetonotethattheobjectsofthe ConstitutionofZambia(Amendment)Bill,2019,ascontainedin its Memorandum,and as articulated bythe Hon Ministerof Justice,MrGLubinda,MP,whenpresentingtheBillforSecond 74 Reading on Tuesday 17th,March,2020,are to amend the Constitutioninorderto,amongothermatters: (i) revisethepreambleinordertore-affirm theChristian characterofZambia; (ii) revisetheprinciplesandvaluesoftheConstitution; (iii) revisetheelectoralsystem forelectionstotheNational Assembly; (iv) revisetheperiodforthedissolutionoftheNational Assembly; (v) revisetheperiodofhearinganddeterminationof Presidentialelectionpetition; (vi) revisethemannerofelectionofmayorsandcouncil chairpersons; (vii) establishtheofficeofDeputyminister; (viii) revisethecompositionofCabinet; (ix) revisetheprovisionsrelatingtotheestablishmentof commissions; (x) revisetheprovisionsrelatingtothepaymentof pensionbenefitsandretentiononthepayroll; (xi) provideforthemembershipofMembersofParliament incouncils; (xii) establishtheDrugEnforcementCommissionasthe 75 Anti-drugs,EconomicandFinancialCrimesAgency, andre-defineitsfunctionasanationalsecurityservice; (xiii) revisethefunctionsofthePublicProtector; (xiv) revisethefunctionsoftheBankofZambia;and (xv) revisethefunctionsoftheAuditor-General.
HonMembers,itisself-evidentfrom thecauseofactionofMr Patel’spetition,thathisboneofcontention,relatestothealleged contractionofpublicdebtbytheExecutivearm ofGovernment, withoutthepriorapprovaloftheNationalAssembly,andtherefore is allegedly,in contravention of Article 63 (2) (d) of the Constitution.
TheConstitutionofZambia(Amendment)BillNumber10of2019, contains seventy-six (76) clauses; amending numerous constitutionalprovisionsto,amongothermatters,addressthe lacunaeidentified byvariousstakeholdersfollowing the2016 amendmenttotheConstitution.Thefactthatoneclauseinthe ConstitutionofZambia(Amendment)BillNumber10of2019,and specificallyclause13,proposestoamendArticle63(2)(d),which requirestheNationalAssemblytoapprovepublicdebtbeforeitis contracted,cannotwarranttheNationalAssemblynottoproceed toconsidertheBill,whichcontainsawiderangeoflegislative proposals.Toputitplainly,theactionbeforetheConstitutional 76 Court in the Patelcase,is,substantially different,to the ConstitutionofZambia(Amendment)BillNumber10of2019.
Inanycase,evenassumingorgrantedthatthepetitionerwas challengingaparticularprovisionintheConstitutionofZambia (Amendment)BillNumber10of2019,theConstitutionalCourtin therecentcaseofLawAssociationofZambia(LAZ)andChapter One Foundation v the Attorney-General 2019/CCZ/0013 (unreported),construedandexplainedthelaw regardingactions challenging Bills.Itwillberecalled in theLAZ casethatthe petitionerscommenced an action in the ConstitutionalCourt, challengingtheproposedconstitutionalamendmentsstipulated intheConstitutionofZambia(Amendment)BillNumber10of 2019.
The ConstitutionalCourtheld thatitdid nothave jurisdictiontoimpeachaBill.TheConstitutionalCourtobserved at,J16toJ17,initsabridgedjudgmentasfollows: “Fromtheabove,itisclearthatwhatthe1stPetitioneris askingustodoistodelveintoBillNo.10.The1st Petitioner’ssubmissionthatwhattheyarechallengingisnot thecontentsoftheBill,butthedecisions,isatvariancewith theirownpleadingsandevidencewhichrequirethiscourtto delveintothecontentsoftheBillitself.Wehavealready statedthatArticle128(3)(b)givesthiscourtjurisdiction.
However,thisjurisdictiondoesnotextendtoquestioningthe 77 contentsofaBill.” Therefore,sincetheConstitutionalCourthasnojurisdictionto impeachorquestionaBill,itcannotinanywaybeprejudiced,by theNationalAssemblyproceedingtodebatetheConstitutionof Zambia (Amendment)BillNumber10 of2019.
Further,Hon Members,inkeeping,withthediversauthoritiesonsubjudice, thatIreferredtoearlier,theNationalAssemblyisnotdebarred from discussingurgentmattersofpublicimportance;suchasthe ConstitutionofZambia(Amendment)BillNumber10of2019.At anyrate,theauthoritiesreferredtoabove,alsolaydown,that,if thesubjudiceruleweretobemadeapplicabletoenactmentof legislation,itwould notonly make the NationalAssembly subordinatetothecourts,butalsomakeenactmentsimpossible becauseofpendingcourtactions.
Needlesstostate,thatthe NationalAssemblyissupremeandsovereignintheexerciseofits legislativepower.

Thus,intheexerciseofmydiscretion,Irulethatitisnotsub judicefortheNationalAssemblytoproceedwithconsiderationof theConstitutionofZambia(Amendment)BillNumber10of2019, notwithstandingtheactioncommencedbyMrDipakPatelinthe ConstitutionalCourt,againstthe MinisterofFinance and the AttorneyGeneral.

78 ________________ 79